The “Nothing-to-Hide Argument” Analyzed: In this rhetorical analysis, I will be taking a look at Daniel J. Solove’s essay “The Nothing-to-Hide Argument,” which is about privacy in the context of personal information and government data collection (Solove 734). Solove’s main argument in his essay is that the general public has a narrow perception of what privacy really is. The purpose behind his main argument is to expose the problems with the nothing-to-hide argument while presenting a way to challenge it for his target audience, government officials. Solove’s argument to his target audience is effective through his exemplary use of substance, organization, and style in his essay.
Facts: In March of 2007 the plaintiffs began construction on a new home, which was financed through First Tennessee Bank as a construction loan. The plaintiffs claim that they entered into a verbal contract with First Tennessee Bank, which stated that the bank would refinance their construction loan at the end of its term to permanent financing. Upon completion of the construction loan the bank declined to provide permanent financing to the plaintiff, thus causing (along with a few other factors) the plaintiffs to go into foreclosure and further more bankruptcy. Five years later (2012) the plaintiffs filed a suit against First Tennessee Bank for breach of contract.
In making its Smith ruling, the Court considered whether the person invoking the protection of the Fourth Amendment could claim a “legitimate expectation of privacy” that has been invaded by government action, and stated that such an inquiry normally addresses two questions: (1) whether the individual has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and (2) whether the individual 's expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as “reasonable.”
Nowadays, “privacy” is becoming a popular conversation topic. Many people believe that if they do not do anything wrong in the face of technology and security, then they have nothing to hide. Professor Daniel J. Solove of George Washington University Law School, an internationally known expert in privacy law, wrote the article Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide’, published in The Chronicle of Higher Education in May of 2011. Solove explains what privacy is and the value of privacy, and he insists that the ‘nothing to hide’ argument is wrong in this article. In the article, “Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide’”, Daniel J. Solove uses ethos, pathos, and logos effectively by using strong sources, using
• Some Cases related to Company’s Liability in respect of Tort I. Bettel et al. v. Yim, (1978), 20 O.R. (2d) In 1976, Howard Bettel and some friends entered Ki Yim’s store. After the boys began acting outrageously, an employee asked them to leave. Instead of immediately leaving the property, the boys went to the front of the store and began throwing wooden matches on the sidewalk.
With this question, privacy v. safety concerns came up. With this concern, The Petitioner, Riley and his lawyers, argued that smart phones simply contain too much personal information to be legally searched by police without a warrant. Many argues that smart phones reveal the most private thoughts of the average American, containing extensive records of the book read, websites visited, and conversations with friends and family of the owner. They also argue that constitutional protections will be surrendered if police can search the smart phone of every American arrested without a warrant. The Petitioner further contend that smart phones are every bit as sophisticated as personal computers and need to be treated as such and can be through of as a window into the owner’s mind.
Teresa's case was submitted to the jury on the counts alleging breach of contract, negligence and wantonness, and the tort of outrage. The jury returned a verdict against Akins and in favor of both plaintiffs. The jury assessed compensatory damages at $450,000 and punitive damages at $150,000, for a total of $600,000 in Megan's case; in Teresa's case, the jury assessed compensatory damages of $200,000 and punitive damages of $150,000, for a total of $350,000.”
Clients have their individuals’ rights for privacy thwarted in a way that although the release of customer’s information is to be used for the identification of possible terrorists, there is no impediment that the very information is actually utilized for other reasons, including nefarious ones. This Act fundamentally ignores some of important privacy laws and gives to the American government unprecedented surveillance powers in regards to eavesdropping in order to gather intelligence and to enforce laws. While it is clear that the balance of power has shifted towards law enforcement , it is also clear that the surveillance does not end within districts or township libraries. Quite the contrary it has reached ones’ residential doorways and this can indeed damage the reputation of the United States as the leader of human
To further support this, information that is collected is used to protect the Nation from "threats.” (2.1)Since this information is used to protect the Nation from “threats,” not to intrude on everyday citizen’s privacy, it is not an invasion of their right to privacy. Correspondingly, part of protecting citizen’s privacy is requiring a probable cause for
Because technology is continually growing, new laws are being passed regarding technology and confidentiality. This article questions the “invasive” internet searches and looks for a constitutional answer. As of now, no electronic device can be confiscated and searched without a warrant. This could prove to be beneficial for Arnie. If he was to report Mr. Bowen’s suspicious data to the police, they would be able to obtain a warrant to officially search Mr. Bowen’s computer.
One of, if not, the most provocative arguments Kerr offers in his article is that the third-party doctrine should not be framed in terms of “reasonable expectation of privacy” in which a person “waives” their reasonable expectation of privacy, but rather as a consent doctrine. In his view, what we voluntarily disclose to third parties eliminates Fourth Amendment protection because of implied consent. Specifically, a person voluntarily discloses information to a third party if they do so knowingly. Consequently, searches, if a government agent’s conduct is deemed as such, are reasonable because the person allowed the government to do so. Kerr’s example for his principle is problematic.
The regulation states, an employee must be restored to a position that is geographically proximate to their previous position. Furthermore, it is an interference of an employee’s right, to which he or she is entitled under FMLA, by failing to restore him or her to an equivalent position upon return to work. 29 C.F.R. § 825.215.
A. Castro is likely an “owner” of the dog because the injury took place after he allowed the dog inside his house, and took care of Puccini when he gave her a treat and bowl of water. A person is considered an owner of an animal, with or without the permission of the legal owner, if that person voluntarily assumes responsibility of an animal, or exerts a level of control over that animal. Steinberg v. Petta, 501 N.E.2d 1263, 1265-67 (Ill. 1986); Beggs v. Griffith, 913 N.E.2d at 1234; Docherty v. Sadler, 689 N.E.2d at 334. A court will not exclude a person from ownership because of the short contact with that animal.
But for the Internet to grow and thrive, users must continue to trust that their personal information will be secure and their privacy protected. Internet privacy concerns are warranted. According to a July 2015 survey of Internet-using households, 19 percent of such households (representing nearly 19 million households) reported that they had been affected by an online security breach, identity theft, or similar malicious activity during the 12 months prior to the survey. Security breaches appear to be more common among the most intensive Internet-using householdsâ€”31 percent of those using at least five different types of online devices suffered such breaches. Security breach